|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 5, 2019 21:13:34 GMT
I didn't say any society/culture not built on Christ is bound to fail. I said equating a culture/society with Christ is bound to fail because it leads very easily to making that culture/society a SUBSTITUTE for Christ - in other words, idolatry. I would never say non-Christian societies are doomed to fail by being non-Christian; nobody with any knowledge of history would say that (though it should be noted that it is also dangerously easy to forget how alien such societies could be because we take certain aspects of the Christian heritage for granted - cf the agnostic classical historian Tom Holland pointing out that the more he studied the Ancient Romans the more he realised that the idea of the fundamental equality of all humankind was a Christian belief so alien to Roman paganism that its absence in that society wasn't even noticed. Similarly I once attended a lecture by a feminist in which she remarked in passing that while she thought Christianity had been harmful to women it did at least teach that their souls were of identical value to those of men, which Hinduism didn't). Kierkegaard is a warning against certain forms of "Christianity the bearer of civilisation" apologetics, which can lead into valuing Christianity because of civilisation and not vice versa. That said, it should be remembered that Kierkegaard was a Protestant Pietist - a very individualistic and otherworldly form of Christianity, which can be dangerously close to antinomianism - and that his treatment of his fiancee, for example, indicates his limitations. (Salisbury and Bismarck's religious beliefs are in some ways close to Kierkegaard's and this indicates some of their limitations, just as Gladstone is in some respects an example of the sort of Christendom-thinking which Kierkegaard legitimately criticises.)
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 16, 2019 19:08:06 GMT
Now that we have seen the bloody culmination of the alt-right worldview in Christchurch, where 49 Muslims were gunned down, perhaps we can all agree to put to rest this notion that there are no enemies on the right, can we?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 16, 2019 22:12:17 GMT
Funny you don't apply the same logic to Islam, isn't it? Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 16, 2019 22:26:58 GMT
Funny you don't apply the same logic to Islam, isn't it? Why is that? Actually, I do apply it to the radical forms of Islam that call for the subjugation for those insufficiently pure in their faith and attack Christians and other believers, as well as those on the hard left and elsewhere who make excuses for them on the grounds that as the underdog, they can do no wrong.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 16, 2019 22:41:28 GMT
It was a horrendous attack, of course. I've been very busy the last few days so haven't paid close attention. My father is in hospital among other things. I don't imagine the fuller details would change my views on anything in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 16, 2019 22:46:40 GMT
It was a horrendous attack, of course. I've been very busy the last few days so haven't paid close attention. My father is in hospital among other things. I don't imagine the fuller details would change my views on anything in this thread. How is your father at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 16, 2019 23:03:46 GMT
It was a horrendous attack, of course. I've been very busy the last few days so haven't paid close attention. My father is in hospital among other things. I don't imagine the fuller details would change my views on anything in this thread. How is your father at the moment? Recovering from a fall and doing better recently, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 19, 2019 12:36:13 GMT
Funny you don't apply the same logic to Islam, isn't it? Why is that? Actually, I do apply it to the radical forms of Islam that call for the subjugation for those insufficiently pure in their faith and attack Christians and other believers, as well as those on the hard left and elsewhere who make excuses for them on the grounds that as the underdog, they can do no wrong. The problem is that you (and others) are willing to see nuance and distinctions when it comes to Islam but not when it comes to the anti-globalist right. If a Muslim leader denounces terrorism that is enough to get him off the hook, despite the very legitimate questions about the history of violence in the spread of Islam and the meaning of jihad. (Incidentally, I personally don't think it's a good idea to demonise Muslims.) But if a populist or Alt Right or New Right etc. commentator appeals to his listeners not to commit terrorists acts (which they generally do) or to engage in violence, that is seen as hypocrisy or lip service. Also, various figures on the right are lumped into the category "Alt Right"-- basically anyone who criticizes globalism or political correctness. So while we have careful distinctions and sobriety when there is an Islamic terror attack, or perhaps a crime perpetrated by some minority, we have moral panic and guilt by association when anything can be attached to the anti-globalist right. I'm not sure who's said we should have no enemies on the right-- perhaps you mean defending free speech?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 19, 2019 12:46:35 GMT
Here is a good video where Dave Cullen shows how the guilt by association works-- apparently, Ben Shapiro is a gateway to neo-Nazism. youtu.be/HkNMU9AtT5QThe only commentator I can find who the terrorist mentioned is Candace Owens-- I barely know of her-- she seems quite mainstream. Perhaps Catcher on the Rye should be banned considering its murderous effects on Mark Chapman. I don't think we can assess views based on the reactions of homicidal maniacs.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 19, 2019 14:11:59 GMT
Actually, I do apply it to the radical forms of Islam that call for the subjugation for those insufficiently pure in their faith and attack Christians and other believers, as well as those on the hard left and elsewhere who make excuses for them on the grounds that as the underdog, they can do no wrong. The problem is that you (and others) are willing to see nuance and distinctions when it comes to Islam but not when it comes to the anti-globalist right. If a Muslim leader denounces terrorism that is enough to get him off the hook, despite the very legitimate questions about the history of violence in the spread of Islam and the meaning of jihad. (Incidentally, I personally don't think it's a good idea to demonise Muslims.) But if a populist or Alt Right or New Right etc. commentator appeals to his listeners not to commit terrorists acts (which they generally do) or to engage in violence, that is seen as hypocrisy or lip service. Also, various figures on the right are lumped into the category "Alt Right"-- basically anyone who criticizes globalism or political correctness. So while we have careful distinctions and sobriety when there is an Islamic terror attack, or perhaps a crime perpetrated by some minority, we have moral panic and guilt by association when anything can be attached to the anti-globalist right. I'm not sure who's said we should have no enemies on the right-- perhaps you mean defending free speech? Not true, I do indeed make distinctions between conservatives (Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson et al.), the alt-lite (Breitbart, Sargon, I'd put you in that category as well) and the alt-right (the Burkean, Richard Spencer etc.). The first group are correct a lot of the time, even if I disagree with them on a few things. The second group I would not consider to be racist, but play down the wrongness of it or give platforms to those in the third category to express their views without being challenged with more than mild criticism. The third group is self-explanatory. Even this is a broad brush, since it's more like a spectrum, which itself doesn't do justice to the variety of views on that plane. My views are that it can be OK to highlight someone's awful views in order to oppose and refute them, but it needs to be done in a way that cannot be interpreted as endorsing these views or giving the impression that they are not worth worrying about. The problem with the example you gave is that one's rhetoric can easily inspire someone to commit such acts, e.g. if you start referring to immigrants as "invaders" or promoting the "Great Replacement", then there's a good chance that somebody will be inspired to take action to repel said "invaders". This has already happened on a number of occasions (the Finsbury Park attack, Pittsburgh, Chemnitz and Quebec City in addition to Christchurch), so I don't think it can be dismissed as inconsequential. In fact, in America since 9/11, you are almost as likely to die at the hands of a far-rightist as you are at the hands of an Islamic terrorist. While the scales elsewhere (apart from NZ) are tipped towards the jihadis considerably, that doesn't mean that right-wing terrorism can be safely ignored as if it didn't exist. As regards "no enemies on the right", I assumed this to be your position, or at least close to it, due to your reluctance to condemn scientific racism when the Burkean published those articles, especially as you would be much more critical of extremism from the other side. If I got it wrong, I am happy to take your word for it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 19, 2019 14:16:28 GMT
Here is a good video where Dave Cullen shows how the guilt by association works-- apparently, Ben Shapiro is a gateway to neo-Nazism. youtu.be/HkNMU9AtT5QThe only commentator I can find who the terrorist mentioned is Candace Owens-- I barely know of her-- she seems quite mainstream. Perhaps Catcher on the Rye should be banned considering its murderous effects on Mark Chapman. I don't think we can assess views based on the reactions of homicidal maniacs. It's unlikely Owens inspired the murder, for one thing she's black and the shooter was quite specifically a white nationalist, possibly a supremacist.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 19, 2019 15:04:41 GMT
While the scales elsewhere (apart from NZ) are tipped towards the jihadis considerably, that doesn't mean that right-wing terrorism can be safely ignored as if it didn't exist. As regards "no enemies on the right", I assumed this to be your position, or at least close to it, due to your reluctance to condemn scientific racism when the Burkean published those articles, especially as you would be much more critical of extremism from the other side. If I got it wrong, I am happy to take your word for it. I resist the effort to join in socially mandated condemnations. I don't really know what "scientific racism" actually means. I'm opposed to race hatred and I favour a race-blind social policy. It seems to me one could just as easily see an event like this as the all-too-predictable outcome of multiculturalism. Inter-religious and inter-ethnic tensions seems to be the inevitable outcome of multiculturalism and yet the drive towards it never seems to be inhibited by this.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 20, 2019 14:20:52 GMT
I've said everything I've had to say on this thread and won't be adding to it.
Although I despise political correctness, which is the reason I ever have anything to say in this area, I also hate race-discourse of both right and left and don't like getting caught up in it. I would be in favour of dropping the concept of race entirely, although the PC brigade would howl with indignation if we ever took the smallest step towards an actual race-blind society. But I don't have to add to it.
Culture and tradition-- not race.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 21, 2019 22:12:39 GMT
The general view seems to be that the murderer when citing Candace Owens (as well as someone else called PewDiePie) was trolling - by mentioning them in this context he pressured them into repudiating him in messages to their large number of followers, and by doing so they drew more people's attention to his wretched manifesto. BTW here is a good example of how to address the Christchurch mass-murder by a Catholic critic of Islam. I have my doubts about some aspects of Kilpatrick's views on Islam (i.e. that because Islam logically allows/encourages extremism he seems to think all Muslims must logically be extremists) but he quite clearly expresses horror at the butchery and compassion for the victims, without thereby retracting his own views: www.crisismagazine.com/2019/the-mosque-attack-in-new-zealand-and-its-consequencesAnd here is an example of how not to do it. Note how while Zmirak denounces the murderer and his monstrous parody of "Western civilisation" (apparently his manifesto includes the usual call to revive Christianity as a whites-only tribal religion) he never expresses any sympathy or compassion for the victims of the slaughter. Instead, towards the end of his piece he brings in abominations committed by Muslims against our Christian brethren in Africa, and ends by insinuating that nazis like the shooter are exactly the sort of people who might naturally be expected to become Muslims - in other words, he's implicitly equating the victims of Christchurch with their butcherer: stream.org/the-christchurch-killer-and-cardinal-danneels-two-traitors-to-christendom/Bishop Doran, whose stalwart record in defence of life and marriage needs no introduction, rightly calls out the tendency among some Irish "traditional Catholics" to absorb and regurgitate the view that DIE MUSSELMANNER SIND UNSER UNGLUCK: www.irishcatholic.com/bishop-hits-out-at-traditional-catholics-for-demonising-muslims/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 21, 2019 22:21:01 GMT
This ATLANTIC MONTHLY article is actually bang on the button about how the trolling activities of alt-rightists resemble the actual Nazis, who revelled in the power of the lie and of violence as assertion of superiority over the untermenschen who believe in rational discourse rather than self-assertion through naked power. This is why Ven. Fritz Gerlich summed up Hitler's evil (before the Nazis murdered him in Dachau) by calling him an oathbreaker, and it is this feature which I find most repulsive when I read holocaust denial writings (as I do occasionally for the purpose of intellectual exercise). Once you get their wavelength and come to terms with their high-and-mighty moral tone over the 'persecution' of the poor peaceful nazis, you can see that they are gloating over the prospect of deceiving people with their lies and perhaps causing pain to some stray Jew or other decent person. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/mosque-shooter-troll-like-original-nazis/585415/
|
|